infinity

so, correct me if i'm wrong here... i'm not a biblical scholar by any means, but i've brought this up several times to people who ARE and they never had an answer for it...

just about every passage which can be seen as condemning homosexuality is old testament, right? i mean, the ones that say it's god's law to not be gay, or whatever...

now, wasn't one of the entire POINTS of the jesus incident (aside from colonization) to be a nullification of the old laws?
i thought jesus was why we can eat pork without going to hell, or no longer have to stone our sisters, or whatever.

so, why exactly is it that christians are so bloody fixated on literally adhering to ONE old testament law, while using jesus as an excuse to ignore all the others?
did jesus, or jesus not, nullify the old laws? if he did, then wtf is the problem? if he didn't, why aren't christians up in arms about the denny's grand slam breakfast?

fragmentsofdreams

Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 are also cited to condemn homosexuality. Leviticus is quoted because it is the easiest to memorize for later quotation (although a surprising number of people rail against homosexuality without being able to name one Bible verse against it).

Dean Anderson

I'm sorry - I can't resist. I'm just itching to address Calebnostro's claims...

Damn! My own first round post - already submitted (before Calebnostro's), but currently waiting in the Moderation Queue for Bible John's post so that they can be displayed concurrently is about 4250 words!

This is a big subject, and if you want to address it comprehensively then you need to cover a lot of ground. I see nothing wrong with the length of Calebnostro's post.

Of course, it's content is a different matter...

Dean Anderson

On the contrary, his argument is weak and full of fallacious logic and inferences.

CalebNostro starts with Lev 18:22, but gets off on the wrong track by arguing about the meaning of "to Lie" and whether it is meant in a sexual sense or not.

As far as I know, this has never been disputed by anyone. The argument about Lev 18:22 is about two things.

Firstly, there is the issue of whether it is about lying with a man as with a woman (as opposed to lying with a man and a woman, or lying with a man or a woman in certain circumstances, or any other possibility). It appears that CalebNostro isn't aware that the "as with" is a product of the English translation and is not present in that form in the Hebrew - or if he is, he glosses over it.

Secondly, there is the issue of the "abomination" - which is specifically a term used to denote wrong types of worship. He does address this briefly, saying that it is not the same as the term used in Deuteronomy for temple prostitutes - but again, this is not under contention. One is a description of a type of act, the other is a term for a group of people. Of course the same word is not used.

To use an analogy, it would by like someone saying that people who worship other gods are committing Idolatory, and then referring to a group of such people as Hindus. You are using different words to describe the action and a group of people who perform that action.

So Calebnostro's inference that because a different word is used in the second place, the word used in the first place must be a general one and not a religious one is not sound.

He then goes on to Genesis 19. His main argument here is that "to know" must have a sexual connotation in verse 4 because it does in verse 8. This is simply a non-sequitur, since he gives no indication why the word should be used in the same way in the two verses other than that they are reasonably close to each other in the text.

He gives no thought to the context of the story. He gives no thought to the internal consistency issues if the mob is supposed to be a homosexual gang-rape mob (if they are homosexual, why would Lot offer his daughters to them? It makes no sense.)

He makes a big issue about "wickedness" vs. "righteousness" - to show that if the people of Sodom (and I note here that he does not address the fact that the Hebrew says "people" rather than "men") were considered wicked then what they did must be wrong. But without establishing that what they did was in fact homosexual, this is irrelevant. No-one is saying that the Sodomites weren't wicked, the arguments against this passage are arguments that the Sodomites weren't homosexual and that their reputation for wickedness was related to something else.

Finally, he takes the translation of "arsenokoitoi" in 1 Corinthians 6:9 as being a homosexual reference as being a given - when in fact this is one of the most dubious translations in the Bible that is argued about regularly.

In short, Calebnostro has presented a very poor case. He has successfully argued that if the verses he is talking about refer to homosexuality then the Bible blatantly condemns it - but has made no attempt to argue that the verses are talking about homosexuality in the first place. He has simply assumed it.

CJD

Ironically, one needn't go to the TNK at all. One needs just look at Romans 1. Paul therein claims that homosexuality is one among many things that occurs in a bass-ackwards world that doesn't honor or give thanks to god (1:21). In other words, so Paul, homosexuals aren't living fully-human lives, aren't living up to their full potential as image bearers of the creator (he might even add that it is implicitly genocidal too).

Just making sure you folks hate it for the right reasons,

CJD

fragmentsofdreams

He should do better in his next post. Part of his problem is he is going after the wrong arguments. Seeing what points seebs actually argues should give him some clarity.

Stumpjumper

Paul was referencing the early Israelites under the purity laws in Romans 1 and making a case that mankind was in need of atonement. It does not have much to say about anyone else and hence I don't think you could say that Paul meant that "homosexuals are not living fully human lives".

Stumpjumper

How are you doing Chili?

The greek word is "malakos" that is translated as effeminate, homosexual perverts, or boy prostitutes. My NAB Catholic Bible has it translated as boy prostitutes instead of homosexual perverts but I am pretty sure it means young boys who have sex with males which is what effeminate would mean. Therefore, sodomites would most likely refer to men who had sex with young boys since there are two other greek words that Paul could have used to denote strictly man on man sex.

But, I agree with your conclusion. Sexuality is an illusion provided by this life and something that we have to work through in our daily lives regardless of who we are sexually attracted to and what we do with those attractions. We need to lose those attachments. Right??? (I think I understood you there.)

Chili

Nice singletrack and remember the rich man who 'did all those things' but was still rich in the end? 'My poor money,' he would say, and failed to realize that the true beauty of gold lies in our ability to walk away from it.

All attachements are illusions but they are ours to learn from and must be exhausted, it seems, before they can teach us what they really mean and why they are ours. This would be the same for homosexuals and therefore it is wrong to isolate them as sinners (which is especially true faith itself becomes a liability in the end).

Dean Anderson

But Seebs doesn't have to argue any points - he only has to refute Calebnostro's points.

Since Seebs's position is that the Bible doesn't strongly condemn homosexuality, he can hardly go through the whole thing saying "This verse doesn't condemn it. Neither does this one. Neither does this one..."

Instead, it is incumbent upon CalebNostro to show where it does condemn it. If he cannot do this then his claim that it does fails.